Mumbai: Teen who drove into cab told to pay cancer hospital Rs 20,000

MUMBAI: Three months after a builder’s 19-year-old granddaughter, who was driving a car, was involved in a head-on collision with a taxi at Malabar Hill, she reached an out-of-court settlement with the five persons who were injured. The Bombay high court last week allowed for the criminal case to be quashed and directed her to donate Rs 20,000 to Tata Memorial Hospital.
The injured persons had filed affidavits giving their consent to the quashing of the first information report. They told the court that they had reached an “amicable settlement” with the accused and wanted to move on with their lives. On a query by the court, additional public prosecutor K V Saste said that none of the victims had suffered a fracture and the injuries were simple in nature.

“No useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending,” said a division bench of Justice Rajendra Savant and Justice Sarang Kotwal while referring to SC judgements. “Having regard to the affidavits filed by the (injured) as also the statements made by them, when put in the box, the same lead to conclusion that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute,” said the judges.

The incident occurred around 10.30am on February 21, 2018 at Walkeshwar, when the south Mumbai resident was on her way to college driving her car. According to the FIR, she was speaking on the phone and rammed her car into a taxi coming from the other side. A motorcycle then banged into the taxi from behind. The taxi driver and two passengers along with the biker and pillion rider were injured and taken to the hospital.

The Malabar Hill police station lodged an FIR against the girl and booked her for offences under the Motor Vehicles Act and IPC for driving negligently, endangering the lives of others and talking on the phone while driving a vehicle. If convicted, she would have faced an jail term of up to two years.

In her petition, she urged the court to strike down the FIR and said that she had reached a settlement with the injured. Advocate Aniket Nikam, counsel for the girl, contended that “she was not driving at a high speed or talking on the phone. This was just an accident and no negligence can be attributed to either side”. The injured persons all filed affidavits supporting her petition. They said they had “no any claim pending against her and all issues and misunderstandings between have been resolved amicably.”